HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34946 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Learned AGA submits that notice of the instant application has been served on the opposite party no.2-informant and opposite party no. 4- Child Welfare Committee on 30.09.2025. However, no one appears on their behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed. Receiving endorsements produced by learned AGA, are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 103 of 2025, under Sections 107/74 BNS and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Hazratpur, District Budaun, during the pendency of trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 08.07.2025 and the first information report was lodged on 14.07.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant did not act inappropriately with the victim (now deceased). According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is next contended that as per the allegations, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 107 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 14.07.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Satsangi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sumit Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report was lodged belatedly. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 107 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant Sumit Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. October 10, 2025 Lbm/- BAIL No. 34946 of 2025 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad